MigL

That's a problem with all democratic political systems. Political leaders only govern four years down the road, and can't see past the next election. But I'll take that over a dictatorship, or one-party system, any day.

Don't you Americans have any politicians with a clean conscience ? ( just kidding, neither do we Canadians ) J Biden seems like the type who would commit an infraction unwittingly, and if told the action wasn't welcome, would stop. I really can't see him doing what he's been accused of. Then again, I have been wrong about things many times, nd Joe is getting old; maybe he forgets when he's told to stop. D Trump has paid people ( S Daniels ) to keep quiet, so as not to ruin his chances for election. What would stop him from paying people to lie ( and ruin his opponent's chance for election ), to secure his own re-election ?

Really ? 1apple - 1apple =0 You had one apple, and you ate it; now you have none. What action and reaction are you ascribing to simple math operations ? ( unless you mean eating is the action, and going to the toilet is the reaction ? )

Effective mass is not the same as inertial mass. It is the mass the electron 'appears' to have when subjected to certain fields/forces. See here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics) The earliest ( easiest ? ) way quantum tunneling was described to me ( back in 2nd year ) is if you consider the wave nature of the electron as described by a wave packet. If that wave packet is 'wider' than the potential barrier, then some part of the wave packet will lie outside the barrier. IOW there is a finite probability of finding the electron outside the barrier. ( and as simplistic as this is, it still assumes you are familiar with some aspects of QM )

Thanks Studiot. That clears up things.

Excellent book; better than the movie. But it was Orson Scott Card.

On the other hand... Did you ever see the movie, The Abyss ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abyss

Most of the Canadians of Italian descent I know, don't seem to like Brits. They consider them snobbish and self-serving; I am always having to defend them. I realize the Covid-19 pandemic has brought a lot of good will out in people. It is now not uncommon for a person to say "hello" from across the street, whereas before, they would have bumped into you, on the same sidewalk, without greeting. But this old British vet, Capt. Tom Moore, has really amazed a lot of people. He started out trying to raise 1000 pounds, for the NHS, by his 100th birthday ( 24 days ), by walking laps of his garden. He's mentioned in a single which topped the UK music charts, received a fly-past from the RAF, received over 150 000 birthday cards and letters ( including from the Queen ) and made an honorary Colonel. During the 24 day period, he received 1.5 million donations for a total of 32.8 million pounds. Not bad at all. Read about it here.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Moore_(fundraiser) You guys are amazing; there's hope for humanity yet.

Don't know if determinism will survive Quantum Gravity. But currently Quantum theory and GR are kicking and screaming trying to avoid unification. As Batman said... "My parents taught me a different lesson, dying in the gutter for no reason at all... They taught me the world only makes sense if you force it to.” What... I'm not gonna believe Batman ?

Definitely. I can certainly agree that D Trump is dancing as fast as he can to try and divert blame for the many failures, from himself, in an attempt to secure re-election. That's been his MO for the last 3 1/2 years.

You know that a helicopter, or a WW1 Sopwith Camel, can easily outmaneuver an F-18, right Alex? The F-18 has a turning radius measured in miles, dependent on speed of course. ( unloaded, it can pull +9g in a banked turn, but only for seconds as the pilot will black-out ) I would be more surprised by the displayed acceleration. An AV-8B Harrier can hover, move sideways or backwards, and possibly accelerate to high subsonic speed faster than an F-18, due to its higher power to weight ratio. But apparently we have no hard numbers as to its speed or acceleration. Only subjective eye-witness reports.

If you want to blame D Trump for the stupid advice he gives ( Hydroxychloroquine, UV light and disinfectants, etc. ), fine. If you want to blame D Trump for squabbling with medical professionals, instead of listening to their advice, fine. If you want to blame D Trump for worrying about his re-election more than mitigating the pandemic, and associated death toll, that's fine too. But in 2009, during the H1N1 epidemic, the CDC estimate for the death toll is between 9000 and 18000. "During the pandemic, CDC provided estimates of the numbers of 2009 H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths on seven different occasions. Final estimates were published in 2011. These final estimates were that from April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010 approximately 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (8868-18,306) occurred in the United States due to pH1N1. These final estimates are available at: Estimating the burden of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in the United States (April 2009-April 2010), " From https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm Who do we blame for those deaths ? Seems B Obama prepared his pandemic response playbook a little late ? ( hey, it's my duty to stir up controversy ) PS: ( and generate discussion )

And your question provides the answer... That pesky quantum uncertainty at the scales of the Planck era, toss determinism out the window. ( until we can force Quantum theory and GR to 'play nice' )

You're in the wrong 'Universe', Bufofrog. You can't get Romulan, or Cardassian, ale on Tatooine.

IIRC an O'Neill cylinder actually consists of 2 counter-rotating ( once about every 2 min ) cylinders, about 5 mi in diameter, and 20 mi in length. Each cylinder is divided lengthwise into 6 alternating transparent and habitable areas,, for a total habitable area of almost 1900 mi^2. Since these cylinders rely on sunlight just as the Earth does, any travel away from the Sun would need not only propulsive power, but also a replacement for sunlight. You mentioned nuclear power ( fission ), but that would involve carrying all of the fuel for the long journey with you, as well as the shielding. Your original idea of fusion ( from a Bussard ramjet type of propulsion/power source ) seems more practical, other than the fact that it doesn't exist yet ( fusion in a hi-speed flow ), and may never exist; and you would still need an alternate means of propulsion ( chemical or fission ) to get up to sufficient speed for the 'scoops' to be efficient, and establish orbit at your destination. Then you would need landing craft, and fuel to make all the landings ( and take-offs ) to transfer the ( by then ) large colony of the two cylinders. Once you actually start considering the scale and logistics of such a project, you realize how immense an endeavor it actually is. But it does seem simple enough to say " You take an O'Neill cylinder, slap a fusion reactor on one end, and you have your slow boat."

Although I am familiar enough with 'compactification ( in the Physical sense ), where dimensions are rolled up on Calabi-Yau spaces, to discuss it, I cannot do the math. But Taeto seems to have a point, as your own link Mordred, gives various ways to 'compactify' a space ( in the Mathematical sense ), which seem different from the use of boundary conditions to 'limit' a space. At the top of your link... "For the concept of compactification in mathematics, see compactification (mathematics)." which leads you to... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(mathematics) As I said, the two don't seem equivalent to me, but my math skills, especially topology, are wanting.

Then why didn't it show up on aircraft radar ? Electromagnetic stealth being prototyped ? ( look up the Northrop-Grumman Tacit Blue stealth demonstrator's shape )

I would have thought you'd give him a white hood ( KKK ) mask, INow, not a 'gimp' ( Pulp Fiction ) mask.

I can see an electromagnetic disturbance, such as lightning. And while a weather radar would certainly pick it up, I'm not sure an I band pulse doppler radar would. Diagnostics only look for 'known' glitches. Say there was excessive solar flare activity, which might affect a wide band radar, would that show up on the diagnostics the next day, if the solar activity had subsided ? I don't think I'd be jumping to extra-terrestrial conclusions as my first choice; just sayin'.

To clarify, CY, The exposure has to be large enough to overwhelm the immune system for serious outcomes. 'Large enough', is obviously different for different people, according to their age or comorbidities.

So the 'UFO' did not show up on the F/A-18 Super Hornet radar. And as the Raytheon AN/APG-79 AESA radar is a fairly advanced piece of kit, I find it hard to believe one radar would detect it, while the other did not. Unless it was a 'glitch', or an electromagnetic disturbance where the wider frequency modes of the ship-based radar would have a better chance of detection. ( most airborne radar use I band, 8-12 GHz, pulse doppler )

Don't let the 'negativity' discourage you. This is nothing compared to what most Physicist ( any scientists ) face in peer reviews of their work. Regarding the parts that have been corrected, or dismissed, by forum members, ask questions, such as "What does the accepted science say ?" And clarify your non-standard terminology. Four dimensional space-time is not a 'fabric', but a co-ordinate system which allows for spatial/temporal measurements, and its dimensions are degrees of freedom. In which case, the space-time 'fluid', made up of compacted Calabi-Yau manifolds, is non-sensical. Asking how the compacted dimensions of string theory manifest themselves, would lead to better understanding and possibly, modifications to your hypothesis, as currently it is not a model or theory

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. You are correct space and time are relative, but a point, or event, in space-time is absolute, and the foundation for the block universe model.

Kinetic energy is frame dependent ( relative ). IOW it may be there in one frame and not there in another; BHs form in ALL frames ( absolute ). You state this yourself, but then jump to an unsupported conclusion.

I would agree. And thanks for the info, INow.